Synopsis

Motion to Dismiss granted as: (1) Claim served on Defendant was not a copy of
filed Claim; and (2) served Claim did not comply with CCA § 11(b).

Case Information

UID:

2007-040-059

Claimant(s):

DeANDRE WILLIAMS Prisoner #99A0052

1 1.Caption amended to reflect the State of New York as the proper
defendant.

Claimant short
name:

WILLIAMS

Footnote (claimant name)
:

Defendant(s):

THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Footnote (defendant name)
:

Caption amended to reflect the State of New York as the proper defendant.

Third-party
claimant(s):

Third-party
defendant(s):

Claim number(s):

111806

Motion number(s):

M-71303

Cross-motion
number(s):

Judge:

CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY

Claimant’s
attorney:

DeAndre Williams, Pro Se

Defendant’s
attorney:

ANDREW M. CUOMOAttorney General of the State of
New YorkBy: Kathleen M. Arnold, Esq., AAG

Third-party
defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:

October 26, 2007

City:

Albany

Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned
case)

Decision

For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Claim
based upon a failure to comply with the jurisdictional requirements of Court of
Claims Act § 11(b) is granted.

This Claim, which was filed with the Clerk of the Court on January 6, 2006,
seeks recovery for lost property allegedly caused by the State’s negligent
acts.

Defendant’s counsel argues that the Claim is jurisdictionally defective
because it does not comply with the requirements of Court of Claims Act §
11(b) in that it does not specify the items of damage or contain a total sum
claimed (Arnold affirmation, ¶ 5). In Kolnacki v State of New York
(8 NY3d 277 [2007]), the Court of Appeals held that the Court of Claims
lacks jurisdiction over a Claim which fails to state “the total sum
claimed,” one of the requirements of § 11(b). A claim against the
State is permissible only as a result of the State’s waiver of sovereign
immunity and the statutory requirements conditioning suit must therefore be
strictly construed (id. at 280). The Court of Appeals noted that the
requirements of § 11(b) are “substantive conditions upon the State's
waiver of sovereign immunity” (quoting Lepkowski v State of New
York, 1 NY3d 201, 207 [2003]) and that the failure to satisfy any of the
conditions is a jurisdictional defect (Kolnacki, 8 NY3d at 280-281).
Kolnacki stressed that “nothing less than strict compliance with
the jurisdictional requirements of the Court of Claims Act is necessary”
(8 NY3d at 281).

The State’s motion was originally returnable on March 1, 2006 and was
ultimately adjourned by the Court to October 10, 2007. Claimant has not opposed
Defendant’s motion. On August 15, 2007, Governor Spitzer signed Chapter
606 of the Laws of 2007, which amended Court of Claims Act § 11(b) to
except actions for “personal injury, medical, dental or podiatric
malpractice or wrongful death” from the requirement that the claim state
the total sum claimed. The act took effect immediately and has retroactive
effect, providing that any claim pending on or after November 27, 2003 which
would have been viable if the act was effective at the time the claim was filed
shall not be dismissed for failure to state the total dollar amount of the
claim. As Mr. Williams’ Claim does not seek recovery for personal injury,
medical, dental or podiatric malpractice or wrongful death, the amendment does
not apply to this Claim. In paragraph 2 of the Claim, Mr. Williams asserts that
25 to 30 books, including all his religious books, were missing. On unnumbered
page 4 of the filed Claim, Claimant asserts that he was damaged in
the amount of $300.00. However, in the Claim he served upon the
Defendant, he failed to include the total sum claimed (see Ex. A,
unnumbered page 2, attached to Motion).

First, Claimant has failed to comply with the pleading requirements of Court of
Claims Act § 11(a) which require that, in order to commence an action in
this Court, a Claim must be filed with the Clerk of the Court and “a copy
shall be served upon the attorney general.” “Under Section
11, both filing with the court and service on the Attorney-General must
occur within the applicable limitations period” (Dreger v New York
State Thruway Authority, 81 NY2d 721, 724 [1992]). The document that was
served on the Attorney General in this instance was NOT a copy of the
Claim that was filed with the Court (seeAli v State of New York,
Claim No. 110988, Motion Nos. M-70517, M-70665, CM-70622, dated February 7,
2006, Sise, P.J. [UID No. 2006-028-516]).

Secondly, as asserted by defense counsel, Court of Claims Act § 11(b)
requires that the Claim state the items of damage and the total sum claimed
(Kolnacki v State of New York, 8 NY3d 277, supra [2007]). The
served Claim does not contain the total sum claimed. The State’s motion
to dismiss is, therefore, granted.

October 26, 2007Albany,
New York

HON. CHRISTOPHER J. MCCARTHYJudge of the Court of
Claims

The following papers were read and considered by the Court on the State’s
motion to dismiss the Claim: